Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful context by disclosing the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, URL) and the chaining workflow, which goes beyond what annotations or schema provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long. The first states the action and resource, the second lists the output and downstream usage. Every phrase is necessary, no redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description effectively lists the return fields and directs the user to query_layer/layer_info. Combined with the schema, the agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool and interpret results. The open-world hint is also consistent with the unspecific keyword search.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the domain context of keyword search and the purpose of the returned URL, but it does not elaborate on limit or org_id beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Montana State GIS open geospatial datasets' by keyword, with specific examples (parcels, zoning, transport). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the returned Feature Service URL is meant for query_layer/layer_info, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to search and discover datasets, then pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info. This implies a workflow and differentiates from those sibling tools, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative search methods.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.